Saturday, November 19, 2016

One reliable metric, when dealing with Christians, to sort out the honest ones from the liars, is to observe how they quote the Bible. Anytime you are dealing with a self-professed Christian who quotes only part of a verse when the full one is contextually relevant, you can safely conclude that he - or in this case, she - is a Churchian who has no interest in the truth. They are merely using the Bible as a cherry-picked weapon to rationalize their pre-existing position.

Consider, for example, these questions from a Churchian at Mark Shea's site:

Boy, am I afraid to ask, but here goes . . . I am only just learning about the Alt-Right. If they are Christians, what do they think Christ meant when he said to love your neighbor as yourself? To do to others as you would have them do to you? What did he mean by "love your enemies" and the parable of the Good Samaritan? What did Paul mean when he said "there is no longer Jew or Greek (etc.) but all are one in Christ Jesus?" What do they make of all Paul's exhortations to avoid faction and seek unity in the body of Christ?

Be kind and help people in need with your private resources, regardless of who they are, when you encounter them, insofar as you are personally able to do so.

Do not selfishly ignore the needs, wants and desires of others. Treat them at least as well as you would prefer to be treated.

Don't be filled with hatred and bitterness. We can be a good neighbor even to those who despise us when they are in need.

There are no nationalities, sexes, or favored nations in the spiritual world. Christians are in the world, but are not of it.

Don't get too hung up on theological differences and competing Biblical interpretations, because now we do not see sufficiently well to truly understand the Will of God in all things.

But these are not honest questions. Notice that she substituted (etc) for the entirety of Galatians, 3:28: "There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus."

As I pointed out in Cuckservative, the dishonest Churchians who rely on these verses to justify everything from illegal Hispanic workers to mass Islamic invasion do not similarly declare that the verse justifies women marrying women, men playing women's sports, or enslaving teenage runaways, as their logic dictates.

If we're going to descend to their level of knowingly deceitful nonsense, we need only point out that the Bible limits itself to denying that there are Jews and Greeks, it says nothing about Mexicans or Arabs, or Africans, or Englishmen, and therefore Christians may legitimately discriminate among them. As it happens, that would actually be less dishonest than the extra-Biblical position they are trying to falsely sell to Christians on the basis of Scriptural authority.

These Churchians are liars, plain and simple. They are deceivers, they are corrupted, and worse, they observably serve the globalist objectives of the prince of this world. We know they are evil by the fruit of their teachings. And once they identify themselves in this way, you can safely dismiss them and everything else they say, because they are the children of their father, the original liar.

Now, obviously everyone makes mistakes. But these deceptions are not mistakes. And no one who intentionally hides the truth can be trusted to know the Truth.

Were the Conquistadors "Good Christians"? How about the Crusaders, or the defenders of Vienna or Lepanto? They all read from the same Bible that we do, studied it probably a lot more thoroughly than we do, and yet somehow this notion of total harmlessness and unconditional altruism never stopped men of their era from defending Christianity and spreading it all across the world, at swordpoint when necessary.

Whatever Christ meant by those things, to be a good Churchian you would have to think firstly that almost every Christian before the last two or three generations got it just about as wrong as they possibly could, and secondly that any religion actually following the Bible as they understand would last about as long as the Amish in a world filled with Aztecs.

The Good Samaritan used his own money to care for the stranger at an inn (near) where he was.

What the Good Samaritan didn't do was to take the stranger back to the Samaritan's village and tell his neighbors that they were now responsible for feeding, housing, and clothing the stranger - and any family who chose to follow him.

"These people are liars, plain and simple. They are deceivers, they are corrupted, and worse, they observably serve the globalist objectives of the prince of this world. We know they are evil by the fruit of their teachings. And once they identify themselves in this way, you can safely dismiss them and everything else they say, because they are the children of their father, the original liar."

That they want to be ruled by Clinton the Satanist is a pretty big tell. If the anti-Christ showed up looking like something from an MMO those tools would still worship him.

Once upon a time, we lived on the North Shore of the Chicago-area. The local fish wrap one week had a laudatory article about how a church in the somewhat wealthier and much much whiter suburb directly to the North of us had, as an act of "charity," raised funds and purchased a house in our town and moved in a single welfare mother and her ten(!) kids from the south side of Chicago.

They slapped our town, not their own, with a six figure annual education expense (exceeding their "investment" w/i 2 years max) and patted themselves on the back for a job well done.

God, I hate these people. May God forgive me, but I loathe them and those like them.

Unamused Flyover Resident wrote:What the Good Samaritan didn't do was to take the stranger back to the Samaritan's village and tell his neighbors that they were now responsible for feeding, housing, and clothing the stranger - and any family who chose to follow him.

There's an excellent parable in the Bible that maps to what they are actually doing.

“There were two men in a certain town, one rich and the other poor. The rich man had a very large number of sheep and cattle, but the poor man had nothing except one little ewe lamb he had bought. He raised it, and it grew up with him and his children. It shared his food, drank from his cup and even slept in his arms. It was like a daughter to him.

“Now a traveler came to the rich man, but the rich man refrained from taking one of his own sheep or cattle to prepare a meal for the traveler who had come to him. Instead, he took the ewe lamb that belonged to the poor man and prepared it for the one who had come to him.”

I have been saying this for a few years now. SJWs, Churchians, Satanists.... whatever... they all have one thing in common. They lie. They observably try to twist, deny and pervert the very facts that happen before their very eyes and yours.

Though (perhaps it's the aftereffects of pizza-gate) I must confess, when I read that this sheep "drank from his cup and even slept in his arms. It was like a daughter to him," my first reaction is: EEEEWWWWWWW!

> Please don't be so churchian that you side with the leftoids to the detriment of Christianity.

I don't know how you get that idea. Obviously if Paul's personal opinions don't trump Jehovah then churchians can't twist his words to abrogate the deplorable sections of the Bible. Every faggy seminarian laves himself in New Testament smarm.

The context of the neither Jew nor Greek talk in Paul's letter to the church in Rome was that people in churches were in some cases aggregating themselves into cliques (like they always do) and some of these cliques were based on ethnicity, race, or social standing. One remarkable thing about this knowing what I do about Roman culture, is that it is possible that a slave could have been the richest member of some congregations. Some of the cliques were based on personality cults and doctrines, most of which turned out to be what Christians in the next two centuries would call heresies. It was a call for intramural comity and respect AMONG CHRISTIANS.One story I used to tell my patients was about a doctor who dies and goes to heaven, and when he gets to the pearly gates is confronted by Peter who tells him he can't cut in front of the line as he is trying to do, quoting the text from Romans. While he is waiting impatiently at the end of the line he spies an elderly looking gentleman with a stethoscope around his neck and a black bag casually saunter up to and through the pearly gates. Furious, he goes back up tonPeter and points at the man saying that he should be treated with the same deference. Peter shushes him and whispers, "Don't let him hear you. That's God. He thinks he's a doctor."

If Churchian cuck logic were the correct interpretation of the scriptures, then Christianity would have died out within one generation after Jesus walked the Earth.

Globalization and multiculturalism are Satanic. It is the Tower of Babel and Nimrod all over again. God commanded to Noah's children to spread out, and when they didn't, God forcibly created the different languages, cultures, and ethnicities. Nationalism (but never racial supremacy) is God's plan.

Ezekiel wrote:you would have to think firstly that almost every Christian before the last two or three generations got it just about as wrong as they possibly could, and secondly that any religion actually following the Bible as they understand would last about as long as the Amish in a world filled with Aztecs.

That's exactly what many of them, Shea in particular, do think. To be fair, it's a bad habit they picked up from the Protestantism many of them grew up in.

A lawyer dies and goes to the pearly gates. St Peter welcomes him in, then uses the pearly gates golf cart to drive him to his new residence in heaven.He starts passing tiny mud huts, and notices outside of them humble men with Halos. He asks St. Peter who they are, and he says "Oh, those are the saints." When asked why they are in mud huts her replies, "We get LOTS of saints... we almost don't even have room for them all."

They start passing normal family homes, and Saint Peter said, "These are the houses of priests and Missionaries. We get lots of those too, but they are rarer than saints."They start passing mansions, and on asking, Saint Peter says, "These are the homes of Hollywood celebrities... they are very very rare and so are very valuable."

Then Saint Peter pulls up in front of a single jewel of a Palace, the only one of less glory than God's Palace itself, and says, "This is where you live."

"There are no nationalities, sexes, or favored nations in the spiritual world"

Actually even this idea might be conceding too much for egalitarians - who says that spirits must be totally equal? There will be hierarchy in the KINGDOM (not republic)of Heaven as well. A Sedevacantist, anti-Bergoglio RC blogger writes:

"Although Jorge Mario Bergoglio has repeated this mantra of “inequality is the root of social evil” repeatedly throughout the course of the past thirteen months, seventeen days, including in Evangelium Gaudium, November 26, 2013, this obsession is just another sign of his absolutely manifest rejection of the Catholic Faith.

Jorge Mario Bergoglio does not realize that inequality is inherent in the nature of created things.

God ordered the Nine Choirs of Angels according to a hierarchy, assigning to each a specific function.

...

There is even inequality among the souls of the elect in Heaven. Although everyone in Heaven is as happy as they are capable of being, not everyone is equally happy. The reason for this is that those who loved God more in this life will have a greater enjoyment of His Beatific Vision in Heaven than those who loved him less in this life. As there is no envy in Heaven, each of the souls of the just rejoice in the justice of God, Who apportions to each according what he has given Him during his life on earth as a member of His true Church, outside of which there is no salvation."

Of course if you believe that all scripture is given by inspiration of God, then there is no contradiction between Paul and Jehovah. Any perceived contradiction is your failure to correctly understand one passage or the other.

Just a comment into the mix. I became a Catholic. In the RC bible, there are notes on all scripture that provide background for a better understanding. A lot of times, this is contrary to the churchIan quote of Scripture. I remind myself of Hal Lindsey, jack Van impe, and the like. These type of people use the bible for their own benefit. I am reminded of teachings of my manager when i was in ,your 20's...the fallen world operates on three basic principals: money, power, and sex.

Were the Conquistadors "Good Christians"? How about the Crusaders, or the defenders of Vienna or Lepanto?

Churchians would say no. Well, they probably won't know about Lepanto, but they would definitely say the Crusaders and Conquistadors (and Inquisitors) were wrong -- had the right intentions, maybe, but went about things the wrong way, resulting in racism and violence, which are bad. They see most of Christianity prior to 1960, especially the muscular, confident faith that created Christendom, as a wrong-headed relic of the past.

Totally off the topic at hand, but I just ran across a site aimed at harassing/convincing at least 37 electors into flipping their votes from Trump to The Evil One when they gather to vote in Dec:

http://flipthe37.blogspot.com/

Is there anyone here with the know-how to harvest these people's info (the people running the place, not the electors, that info is already in the open and posted on that site) and start some folks going after THEM?

I know this needs to be done, but my nerd-fu is simply too weak to accomplish much of anything (as my old man would say, "All I've got to contribute is the urge.")

We might also want to focus on the few weak kneed souls they're trying to flip and remind them in a firm manner that the havoc they would unleash (and I mean real actual and targeted violence, not random people lighting their own neighborhoods on fire) would be Biblical in nature.

Stealing the election out from under Trump would start a civil war, the first strikes of which would happen so fast and be of such ferocity as to beggar belief.

They're playing with a kind of fire that they have never seen before and do not grasp the destructive power of.

As I said, this is a problem that demands a sledgehammer solution, and I am only able to bring a tiny ball-peen (aka a single email) to bear on it.

Thus I turn to the horde. Can you guys turn some war dogs on these assholes and make 'em sweat? Any effect on target would be helpful, IMO.

The point I was making was 36, "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword." but I was making sure to provide context, which, ironically, just drives home the passage in question rather than showing that it's understanding is false.

Christianity was EXPECTED to cause wars, and not to shirk or shrink from them. That's why I despise JW's so much...because they claim to be doing god's work, through proscelytism, and then go on to ignore the second half of his work, without realizing that by doing so, they are being more harmful than if they had left it undone altogether.

"They see most of Christianity prior to 1960, especially the muscular, confident faith that created Christendom, as a wrong-headed relic of the past."

Even if we ignored all the "muscular Christians" of history, Crusaders etc., there still remains the fact that Bible-faithful Christianity is very much committed to ferocious religious intolerance (from the humanist perspective). The glory of God demands overthrowing of false deities.

I think that Fidel Castro drew attention, some years ago, to the way Christians pleaded for toleration when being persecuted by pagan Roman authorities, but when they got state power in their own hands, they began to crack down on other religions as fast as they could.

To INFORMED infidels, who do not rely on mere dull propaganda soundbites meant for simpletons, the way Christians behaved in the 4th century AD is perhaps even more worrying than what happened during the Crusader era.

An example of such concern would be the book "There is No Crime for Those Who Have Christ: Religious Violence in the Christian Roman Empire by Michael Gaddis. Here are excerpts that shows what unleashed Christian zeal can do:

"pp. 187-189

In early 5th-century Upper Egypt, the monk Macarius of Tkow received word that the idol worshippers in a nearby village had taken to sacrificing Christian children on their altars. Macarius and three disciples headed for the pagan village in order to overthrow the idol and temple of their god, Kothos. When warned that the pagans would resist, Macarius replied, “As the Lord lives, even if they kill me I shall not stop.” When the pagan villagers saw monks approaching, men and women alike grabbed every available weapon and barricaded their doors. With the pagans seemingly terrified, Macarius and his brethren forced their way into the temple of Kothos. But it was a trap. Twenty men fell upon them, seized them, bound them up like sheep and prepared to sacrifice them on the altar, saying, “Your lifespan ends today: behold, your slaughtering-place!” It seemed as if the longstanding Christian idea of the ascetic body as sacrificial offering was about to end a gruesomely literal expression. But Macarius, though not afraid of martyrdom, on this day was to wield violence rather than endure it. “Behold,” he said, “Christ will help us.” At the last minute, Besa, the disciple of the famous abbot Shenoute, stormed the temple with a large gang of monks. When they could not force open the door, they prayed, and God threw it open. The pagans were paralyzed with terror. Besa asked Macarius, “Father, do you want to set the fire, or should I?” Macarius answered, “No, rather, let us pray, and God will send down fire from heaven to destroy the temple.” And so it happened. For Macarius, this act of divine violence served in turn to legitimize an act of human violence he himself was about to commit. Macarius promptly ordered the brothers to seize Homer, the high priest of the pagans. At his command, they kindled a great fire, and threw Homer into it, along with all the idols they had found in the village. Macarius illustrates neatly the connection between martyrdom and holy violence, between enduring and inflicting violence. He was both willing to die for his faith, and willing to kill for it.

Barsauma, the Syrian archimandrite, was depicted as mixing divine miracle and physical violence in a campaign of destruction, as he and his monks wandered through Palestine and Transjordan levelling synagogues and pagan temples with evenhanded thoroughness, the hagiographer pausing to point out place-names from the Book of Numbers as if Barsauma were reenacting Joshua’s victories over the Canaanites.145"

To destroy any globalist ideas for a Churchian, simply point our Revelation 7:9-10.

"After this I looked, and behold, a great multitude that no one could number, from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and languages, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed in white robes, with palm branches in their hands, and crying out with a loud voice, "Salvation belongs to our God who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb!”

Even at the end of time there is a recognition of tribes and nations. They aren't going anywhere, nor should they.

Since Genesis 11 (The Tower of Babel) the Lord instituted the nations as a way of limiting great evil since the propensity of man is to do evil continually (Gen. 6:5) and globalism makes anything possible for man (Gen. 11:6). That's a bad combination.

A Christian should only expect there to be peace among the nations and the people of those nations in Christ alone. They should not expect peace to be brought to the nations and their peoples through multicultural empires and globalism.

"We saw how in the reign of Justin, Christianity was established in the kingdom of the Himyarites by the efforts of the Christian king of Ethiopia. When Abram was set upon the throne, Gregentius was sent from Alexandria to be the bishop of Safar, the chief city of the Himyarites.68 The laws which Gregentius drew up in the name of Abram are preserved. Doubts of their authenticity have been entertained; but even if they were never issued or enforced, they illustrate the kind of legislation at which the ecclesiastical spirit, unchecked, would have aimed. It is characteristic that sexual offences occupy a wholly disproportionate part of the code. Fornication was punished by a hundred stripes, the amputation of the left ear, and confiscation of property. If the crime was committed with a woman who was in the potestas of a man, her left breast was cut off and the male sinner was emasculated. Similar but rather severer penalties were inflicted on adulterers. Procurers were liable to amputation of the tongue. Public singers, harp-players, actors, dancers, were suppressed, and any one found practising these acts was punished by whipping and a year's hard labour. To be burned alive was the fate of a sorcerer. Severe penalties were imposed for failing to inform the public authorities of a neighbour's misconduct.

On the ground of St. Paul's dictum that the man is the head of the woman, cruel punishments were meted out to women who ventured to deride men.69"

That last sentence shows how "red-pilled" the ancient ascetic Christian fanatics were - they were in spiritual fight against the sinful progeny of fallen Eve, and did not look on favourably on sassy backtalking women.

"One reliable metric, when dealing with Christians, to sort out the honest ones from the liars, is to observe how they quote the Bible."

To this, I would also add that another reliable metric is to observe which verses they avoid. For example, notice how most of them avoid the passages which describe the fact that Jesus Himself made a weapon and drove people out of the temple with violent force. Or notice how they often fail to quote that Jesus insulted people, calling them snakes, vipers, and sons of the Devil bound for hell (and this latter comment makes some of what the Alt-Right says look tame in comparison). And notice that they fail to note that scripture says that a person who does not look after his own family first, is as bad as an unbeliever. Or that a man who does not work does not eat. And so on and so forth.

So it is not only how they quote the Bible, but what they quote that is indicative of how they think.

Mis-quoting the Bible is so wrong. The argument becomes a lie. We are one with Jesus Christ yet the lie is Christians are accepting of others at the detriment of their religious beliefs. We can't accept gays who already turned against Christians. Many races and nationalities cannot be converted. Women cannot be leaders in the Christian Church. Feminism essentially made abortion a basic right. False teaching makes a mockery of Christianity.

"A Christian should only expect there to be peace among the nations and the people of those nations in Christ alone. They should not expect peace to be brought to the nations and their peoples through multicultural empires and globalism."

"As I pointed out in Cuckservative, the dishonest Churchians who rely on these verses to justify everything from illegal Hispanic workers to mass Islamic invasion do not similarly declare that the verse justifies women marrying women, men playing women's sports, or enslaving teenage runaways, as their logic dictates."

Exactly! They always twist these words in Galatians 3. It is simply ridiculous to think that Paul was even remotely discussing anything other than a spiritual reality in regard to salvation through Christ alone for all of humanity. The earthly relationships between free and slave, male and female, etc. might be effected in some ways by this spiritual reality... but it is not an earthly reality itself. The slave was still a slave, the man was still a man, the woman still a woman, the Jew was still a Jew, on and on.

"I think that Fidel Castro drew attention, some years ago, to the way Christians pleaded for toleration when being persecuted by pagan Roman authorities, but when they got state power in their own hands, they began to crack down on other religions as fast as they could.

To INFORMED infidels, who do not rely on mere dull propaganda soundbites meant for simpletons, the way Christians behaved in the 4th century AD is perhaps even more worrying than what happened during the Crusader era."

Christians never claimed to tolerate pagan religion (they were martyred for not worshiping the emperor), and they never asked to be tolerated as one religion among many. They always aspired to the conversion of the pagans. They didn't see Constantine as a man of tolerance, but as a convert to the Christian faith.

Is that really true or is it merely modern-day propaganda being clothed in religious garb?

Seems to me the Bible was filled to the BRIM with serious actual racial supremacy! I'm paraphrasing: "God sent them to kill all of the tribe: the men, the women, the boys, down to the cattle and sheep; to take the young girls for (sex) slaves; and to salt the earth so that that tribe should never grow again." How is THAT not racial supremacy -- in violent spades!?

(And before you send the "that was the OLD Testament, we do things differently now." EITHER the Bible is the Bible, or it isn't. EITHER we work to understand the "original meaning" (oh, how Constitutional of us, too...) of the whole thing; OR we can pick and choose what we will 'define' as what we're supposed to follow and chuck the rest.)

"the monk Macarius of Tkow received word that the idol worshippers in a nearby village had taken to sacrificing Christian children on their altars. Macarius and three disciples headed for the pagan village in order to overthrow the idol and temple of their god, Kothos."

Damn those Christians and their blind zealotry in opposing human sacrifice!

The Tower Bable, really stirred me up. I found rays of sunshine in the non-churchian position. It is not a seal of approval for aggression, brutality or injustice. Non-churchians Christian s are not against Christ. What a place this is you've created VD or should I say Morpheous?

@32 "We might also want to focus on the few weak kneed souls they're trying to flip and remind them in a firm manner that the havoc they would unleash (and I mean real actual and targeted violence ...

As I said, this is a problem that demands a sledgehammer solution..."

Let me suggest the other-way-round! If there are some "weak-kneed" electors, being frightened and harassed by our enemies -- then jumping on them with harshness can just as easily or more easily confirm them in the lies being forced on them. WE did not dox them; and to try to "strengthen" them by whacking 'em with a sledgehammer is just a likely to frighten them further!

I'd suggest, rather, SUPPORTIVE, kind messaging to the poor electors (who probably did NOT sign up for this crap!). Let them see that WE want to protect them, as against our (and their) enemies who want to harm them.

These are folks who care about the country, or they would not bother to get so involved in an election process. Applaud, support, urge fealty ...oh, and dox the SHIT out of the people harassing them!

Is that really true or is it merely modern-day propaganda being clothed in religious garb?

Seems to me the Bible was filled to the BRIM with serious actual racial supremacy! I'm paraphrasing: "God sent them to kill all of the tribe: the men, the women, the boys, down to the cattle and sheep; to take the young girls for (sex) slaves; and to salt the earth so that that tribe should never grow again." How is THAT not racial supremacy -- in violent spades!?..."

Did you actually read those verses with the intention of trying to understand them or did you just get triggered by them and throw the book down in disgust?

@52 (to @48) "what do you actually mean? The moral commands of the Bible are the Ten Commandments. The conduct of war was intended to ensure victory. They are two different things.Or are you a bit confused?"

IF the moral commands are (only) the Ten Comd.; then how do we get to: women being silent in church, or homosexuality is punished by death, or even: stay within your own tribe-and-language that God has made?

@17 wrote, to which I was objecting: "...never racial supremacy) is God's plan."

The conduct of war does not "excuse" today's lack of racial supremacy. Declaring that racial supremacy is not "God's plan" directly conflicts with ... you know ... God's plan(s) for wiping out other tribes (which, I suggest, may often be conflated with races).

I know a lot of Bible, but I don't know any parts where we are told to accept into our "homes" all others. (Someone above mentioned the Good Sam. -- who specifically did NOT invite the injured foreigner into his OWN house,but paid for him to stay in as public house.)

Deuteronomy 20:14 “Only the women and the children and the animals and all that is in the city, all its spoil, you shall take as booty for yourself; and you shall use the spoil of your enemies which the LORD your God has given you."

@64, the majority are the legislative law of ancient Israel, the "silent in church" is a recommendation from Paul, his reasoning is laid out, at least in part. For the most part Christian morality is for Christians to reason out from the Ten; depending on the branch of Christianity those are formalized as Traditions and the like. Formal punishment of misdeed is the role of the State.

@59 "Did you actually read those verses with the intention of trying to understand them or did you just get triggered by them and throw the book down in disgust?"

I DO understand them, I actually support them. (Like most women, I don't have an "off' button on my application of violence. If a foe surrenders, it's a massive difficulty to STOP trying to destroy him/her without pity or regard.)

I would/do support massive, pitiless violent forcing the 'immvaders' OUT of places they do not belong (the U.S., Europe, Australia -- OUR places, the White countries). I would (albeit not without a few feelings of guilt) support building a massive massive wall across the top of sub-Saharan africa, throwing all the africans who've come out of their "homelands" (no matter who "brought or forced" them) back OVER the wall and forgetting they exist while they rape and kill each other for eternity.

My point was and is that to say (as @17 did) that "racial supremacy is NOT God's plan" (to me) is just wrong. What I see in the Bible --and the old Church -- is that racial supremacy is PART of God's plan/preference for humanity.

wreckage wrote:Deuteronomy 20:14 “Only the women and the children and the animals and all that is in the city, all its spoil, you shall take as booty for yourself; and you shall use the spoil of your enemies which the LORD your God has given you."

Except my interpretation of that is slaves - not sex slaves. I'm sure the WOMEN were used as concubines, but I don't see any explicit approval from God on that count... in fact, much like Jacob's two wives, the multiple concubines and Hagar seem to be good examples of what NOT to do.

And certainly not young girls as sex slaves.

If that is what they did, then shame on them. But I'm confident that was not what God gave them permission to do.

I read somewhere about some persuasion technique of using two not so great options to force the chooser to choose the desirable option... was that here?

@47 Keep the context. That was given to the nation Israel when they were used to judge the Canaanites. Odds are, you don't fit in either group.

As for the topic of the blog. Nations will always be here. Nations are judged. The sins a nation commits, they answer for. The idea of open borders is not found in the Bible, and is used by men for their own lusts (money and otherwise). Simple common sense opposes this.

Oh. COME ON! Whatinthehell do you think the tribes were keeping the young girls for?!? What is the history and pattern of ALL Middle Eastern tribes? Hell, of ALL tribes everywhere anytime?! (American Indians? Chinese? ALL conquerors everywhere throughout history have TAKEN WOMEN AS SEX SLAVES!! Don't pretend to be ignorant!

Like Vox wrote the other day; they don't mention "oxygen-breathing" as applied to humans. There is (should BE!) no need to 'explain' to (intentionally blind?) people what the point of killing alllll the people -- except the young girls -- would be.

@71 I honestly couldn't say. Men were tacitly permitted sex with their female slaves, but as you say, all the stories portray that as a mistake, despite it seemingly being permitted by tradition. The Law didn't come into a vacuum, in some cases it clearly limits or overturns previous traditions (the avenger of blood in cases of murder, for example, or "do not cause your children to walk through the fire")

Until Moses there wasn't a clear break from whatever traditions Abraham's people had, (remember the references to "household gods", probably animistic or ancestor-worship fetishes) and we're pretty much left to guess as to those.

@63 "racial superiority of Assyrians, or the Persians, for example, when used by God to punish Israel."

Not familiar with that, specifically, -- but did God suggest merging those tribes -- becoming one people,inviting them in to take over? Did God use the racially pure Persians as a .. you know ... racially supremacist weapon?

@73, sex slaves is a modern concept with pretty narrow connotations. The women would be slaves and would be handmaidens or wet-nurses to the matriarchs, or concubines to the men. This is not the same status as "sex slave", it is the status of "slave".

There are two reasons why tribes do this: one, the survival value of a fertile woman is too great for her to be discarded, and two, for a tribal war to end the male line, the avenger but also the bearer of the rights to the land, has to die... so the minimum slaughter for that end is to let the women live.

@67 "I don't know any parts where we are told to accept into our "homes" all others."Quite true. There is no such requirement."

Helloo? Analogy -- you know "a thing that is comparable to something else in significant respects."

It seems as if ALL modern churches use the Good Sam. as an excuse to bring hordes into OUR home(land). And yet the Bible itself makes (seemingly?) clear that the Good Sam, held up as an example to follow, did NOT "invite them all" but instead ministered to -- and LEFT behind -- the injured man.

Back to: "oxygen-breathing" -- and for those who don't GET that: when a leader (religious or otherwise) is providing DIRECTION to his subordinates / followers, he does NOT have to direct them to keep breathing, right? Paul was NOT telling women to be silent because they were already silent -- he was saying SHUT UP to women who were NOT silent! "God/the Bible" did not have to say: use the young girls I said you should keep and use for yourselves AS sex slaves, cause EVERYONE ON THE PLANET Knew that! NO one had to be TOLD that a result of war IS rapine. Rapine means RAPING, means using the young girls AS sex slaves!

@71 in fact, much like Jacob's two wives, the multiple concubines and Hagar seem to be good examples of what NOT to do.

I'm sorry, but you're being totally naive! "Multiple concubines" -- where did they come from? WHOSE women were they before they were captured, sold, of traded to be a concubine?

(And please realize,I am SO not writing "oooh,eeeevil men, misusing women!" (As Vox does) I am saying: "THIS is reality. I'm not supporting or rejecting: I'm DESCRIBING!" Once upon a time was a brainwashed feminist; I am all recovered now.)

@71 And certainly not young girls as sex slaves.

Are you unfamiliar with actual ME (well, HUMAN) history, or merely horrified by the facts of it that you must blind yourself to reality about it?

@71 If that is what they did, then shame on them. But I'm confident that was not what God gave them permission to do.

On what basis are you confident of this? WHY would God say "kill the young boys, keep the young girls" if they were only to be "slaves"?

@71 I read somewhere about some persuasion technique of using two not so great options to force the chooser to choose the desirable option... was that here?"

No. Sorry. You are either unfamiliar with human history, or choosing to close your eyes to what was actually going on, throughout human history.

A big part of the Liberal-Leftist mental switcheroo that has made many people to confuse Biblical God with "the Spirit of Equality" is that Heaven is understood to be some kind of perfect egalitarian utopia where all earthly distinctions are abolished. And correspondingly, Liberation Theology heretics present the Kingdom of Heaven as a Communist paradise here on earth.

"Les Misérables isn’t just a story — it’s a masterpiece of metapolitical propaganda. It reinforces the view of history where idealism, youth, and nobility are solely the province of the egalitarian Left. No failure or slaughter is useless because the “true” revolution exists as a kind of Platonic “form” to be striven for endlessly, a future both unreachable and inevitable. Javert thought his was “the way of the Lord” but it turns out Heaven is simply a Paris Commune that never ends."

@83 "Because the young boys would become a physical danger when they grow up. Women will never be."

Hence, Janissaries or eunuchs?

Why would you not keep the young boys UNTIL they grow up? Or 'grow them up' to not be a danger? African slave owners, Western Hemisphere slave owners, Arab slave owners, Chinese slave owners, did NOT "kill all the boy children" -- they made them into useful slaves!

Sorry, no,I won't go here. The young girls were kept AS sex slaves (or as slaves who were used for sex -- does that make it any less painful to realize?).

Sorry, no,I won't go here. The young girls were kept AS sex slaves (or as slaves who were used for sex -- does that make it any less painful to realize?).

I don't deny it because it's too painful to realize. After all, I know they killed babies and have no problem with it. I deny it because I think it just wasn't the case. It would have happened in some circumstances, but as a Torah-sanctioned practice, I see no reason to think so. We don't see recreational sex with the female slaves and concubines in any of the stories. It was always the last option, if the real wife turned out barren.

Since we are informed that God removes kings and establishes kings (Daniel 2:21), perhaps these Christians should conform their will to God's will and whole heartedly support Trump and the hard right who put him in office and were evidently in perfect alignment with God's will.

It's time to grow up, my dear historical innocents. The girls were spared for sex. This is the historical norm.

The reason that cities surrendered rather than resisted was because resistance meant from one to seven days of unmitigated rape and slaughter by the victorious army. To surrender was to be spared the sack.

There's not only the fact that it's not mentioned, but the fact that that the decision to start having sex with the concubine IS mentioned. If it was just not mentioned as a completely obvious thing, you'd have these slave/concubine sons popping up all over the stories. Remember, there was no birth control, nor did anyone even want birth control. They wanted as many sons as they could possibly have.

That female "sex slave" captured in battle becomes the man's wife (concubine). You can read the instructions at Deuteronomy 21:10-14. Pay close attention to the part about "she shall become his wife." Not "she shall become his sex slave."

Instructions for how to deal with captive women. Step one, *she* is to remove her clothing. Afterward, she'll get something to wear when she deserves it or whenever he decides to give her clothing. She is to shave her head and cut her nails. He does NOT do it to her, she is required to do this. Then she is in mourning for 30 days for her (dead) father and brothers. After she's had 30 days to think about her position in the grand scheme of things, he MAY go into her (sex, which is the act of marriage) and if he does he will become her husband and she will be his wife.

Modern churchians: defining "wife" as "sex slave" through complete ignorance of what the Bible actually says.

This is almost as good as the churchian theologian who stopped by my blog and to convince me that in 1st Corinthians 6:15-16, Paul was NOT talking about having sex with prostitutes, he was warning men not to marry them. He did this because he was attacking my exegesis of Genesis 2:24 and the fact that marriage begins when the virgin has sex the first time.

Churchians hold to the teachings of the Nicolaitans, which Christ hates.

Churchians claim the Hebrew word "dabaq" means commitment in Genesis 2:24 and claim that is the requirement for a wedding ceremony. Problem is, Genesis 2:24 was quoted by Jesus in Matthew 19:5 and the word "dabaq" was translated into Greek as "kollao." Then, "kollao" was used in 1st Corinthians 6:16 to mean sex, within the context of Genesis 2:24 (Paul quoted half of it within that passage). And the "become one flesh" part? Jesus explains in Matthew 19:6 that God joins the two together (meaning that part of Genesis is describing what God does) and Paul explained in Ephesians 5:29-32 that the becoming one flesh in marriage is the same type of spiritual joining as becoming one body with Christ. They are both a great mystery.

Which means that the Hebrew word "dabaq" as used in Genesis 2:24 means "sex" and Genesis 2:24 should read (in Engish)

"For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, have sexual intercourse with his wife and the Lord God shall make them one flesh."

That shoots churchian sexual morality all to hell so our churchian theologian came by and made a heroic argument, arguing that kollao as used in 1st Cor. 6:16 didn't mean sex, it meant marriage. Paul was telling Christian men not to marry whores.

The problem is he overlooked one critical point and this is where it got funny.

1st Corinthians 6:15-16 is the ONLY passage in all of Scripture that contains a prohibition on using a prostitute and it only applies to Christian men. According to Romans 4:15 and 5:13, if there is nothing in the Law that prohibits doing something, performing that act is not a sin. Which means the aforementioned churchian theologian really stepped in it. Either it's perfectly acceptable to bang whores or an eligible virgin is married when she first has sex.

What a choice: either sex = marriage or it's perfectly acceptable (not a sin) for husbands to have sex with prostitutes. Knowing that women control the church, which way did he go upon being informed of his error?

Predictably, he attacked Genesis 2:24 claiming it meant nothing. He then claimed the requirements for marriage were contained in Ezekiel 16 and 23.

The whole episode occurred over the course of four blog posts. Entertainment for some, torture for others, but highly amusing. You may read the summary found here if you wish.

All of these make me feel better about my own church. Our sermons track an entire book of the bible, verse by verse each week. Last was Jeremiah, and now is Revelation. And when the principle text is just a few verses from the chapter, we read the entire chapter first "for context."

Of course, our church is PCA, and our pastor is already preaching against the convergence we see in the greater presbytery. PCA split off of PCUSA because of SJW convergence, and we (the faithful churches) aren't afraid to do it again.

Also, elections for Elders and Deacons is coming up at the end of the year, and we've all been instructed to go read I Timothy 3 before submitting nominations.

Wait... is there a victorious culture somewhere in history that does NOT kill the men and take the women as loot?

I think the bible was written with a remarkable understanding of how humans are put together. One does not bind the mouths of the kine that treadeth out the grain, nor deny the warrior the rightful spoils of his conquest.

That's one of the reasons Trump is so important. The foreign invaders are treating our populace like a conquered people, because in their minds it has already happened, and they are simply taking the rightful spoils of their conquest.

It is past time to be the winners and put paid to these notions, And maybe we should take their women to make the point... Excepting the ones with moustaches, of course.

Avalanche wrote:Seems to me the Bible was filled to the BRIM with serious actual racial supremacy! I'm paraphrasing: "God sent them to kill all of the tribe: the men, the women, the boys, down to the cattle and sheep; to take the young girls for (sex) slaves; and to salt the earth so that that tribe should never grow again." How is THAT not racial supremacy -- in violent spades!?

What does diluting one's race with inferior race genes have to do with racial supremacy?

Religious supremacy is the correct label. You Canaanites think those gods you sacrifice children to are worth anything? Watch us utterly defile your city, destroy your people and claim your nubile young women for our own use.

Trying to read racial supremacy into that is an error that the Jews themselves made, and they were punished for it severely after they crucified Jesus.

I suspect that many, if not most of these people, are not Christians, but occultists. An occultist believes that Christianity is just a lower/weaker form of majik and lesser of the occult practices. White versus black.

Seems to me the Bible was filled to the BRIM with serious actual racial supremacy! I'm paraphrasing: "God sent them to kill all of the tribe: the men, the women, the boys, down to the cattle and sheep; to take the young girls for (sex) slaves; and to salt the earth so that that tribe should never grow again." How is THAT not racial supremacy -- in violent spades!?

You snake. God was wiping out the seed of the Nephilim. The product of the sons of god (Elohim) mingling with the daughters of men. You look through the Word of God through the eyes of the flesh, while forgetting the spiritual realm.

Vox OP on ChurchiansThey are merely using the Bible as a cherry-picked weapon to rationalize their pre-existing position.

The first question to ask someone quoting Scripture is for the verses preceding and following. What's the context? Many times these Churchians can't do that, because they have not actually read much of the BIble, they just have pet verses. Ignorance can be cured. Sit with them and read the context. See if that brother or sister can be shown their error, and repent.

There are others who know the context, who have read the Bible, and they still persist in forcing Scripture to serve their politics. These are liars. We know them by their fruit. Do not hesitate to point out the false path they are on, or who they are serving.

I agree; most of them are not doing it maliciously but because they've heard someone who they consider a spiritual authority quote them that way, and assumed foolishly that that person has done his homework on quoting it in context.

There are many, many Christians who, sadly, don't take the time to read and research and arrive at their own conclusion unless information is spoon-fed to them by people they consider subject-matter experts or their liberal preachers.

We know that modern day Christianity in America is vast and wide and very, very shallow. Churchianity in America is spreading beyond our borders and that's a shame. Most of what is taught by, most likely than not, false teachers/preachers to false converts is very liberal and totally unbiblical in so many obvious ways.

Do you remember when Obama used the phrase "brother's keeper"? It made me angry when he did, because he used it to advance his Marxist agenda, all the while ignoring that the phrase was first spoken by a murderer who in defiance to God retorted back in a most complaining manner the rhetorical phrase so often quoted by Obama. If one lets context guide the Biblical narrative, one can see that the phrase was not uttered by God, not imposed by Him on Cain, nor is it a doctrinal statement.

Same kind of [mis]treatment with the Acts account of Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5: 1-11)and their deception, reason for which the Lord took their lives, as opposed to cited reasons most liberals proffer today: that the Church is to be socialist. That passage teaches that the Church is to be lover of the Truth!

You are right about those being taken out of context to endorse illegal immigration -- but here's a verse that soundly beats down that mode of thought:

John 10:1Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber.

And those who encourage "welfare" to go to these illegals rather than the citizens are, quite arguably, worse than an unbeliever:1 Tim 5:8Anyone who does not provide for their relatives, and especially for their own household, has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.

You are correct, but keep in mind that God does not change. When looking at any passage in Scripture involving the submission of women, the context is Genesis 3:16 (he shall rule over you) and Numbers 30. Context is not simply the immediate context.

@108

Unfortunately, this is the crux of the problem. There are multiple doctrines that were put in place through the writings of Ambrose, Jerome and Augustine over 1500 years ago. Specifically I'm talking about sexual morality and equalism, the moral foundation of feminism. To get an idea of how bad the situation is, this is a list of 21 points concerning sexual morality taken from Scripture. The modern church only agrees with 5 of them and either denies or ignores the rest.

Please use to the link to the list of 21 points of sexual morality in comment @112 and ask that question on my blog. The answer is rather contentious because it involves issues in the very early church and the carry-over to later times, which means any discussion will most likely turn into a Catholic-Orthodox-Protestant pissing contest.

Please use to the link to the list of 21 points of sexual morality in comment @112 and ask that question on my blog. The answer is rather contentious because it involves issues in the very early church and the carry-over to later times, which means any discussion will most likely turn into a Catholic-Orthodox-Protestant pissing contest.

Well-then, we know that the Protestants will handily win... they have infinitely more pee than 'Catholic' or 'Orthodox'. ;)

That may be so in some instances. My experience it is mostly the SJW's, atheists, occultists, who pull this crap. And SJW'ism, atheism, occultists, are incompatible with Christianity. Or, better yet, "You are of your father the devil."

"Just because Paul said something and it's in the Bible doesn't mean it's from God's mouth. Paul says so."

This is classic churchian theology.

God knew that these satanist would try to deceive in this way, as this originated way back in 63 AD. In response, Peter wrote to the believers of northern Asia Minor a reminder of the basis of their Christian faith and to instruct future generations. He argued that believers affirm the Scriptures' apostolic tradition and warned his readers about the coming of false teachers.

2 Pet 3:15-18... and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation—as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, as also in ALL his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures. You therefore, beloved, since you know this beforehand, beware lest you also fall from your own steadfastness, being led away with the error of the wicked; but grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

Peter reaffirms the Holy inspiration of ALL Paul's teachings and expected believers to adhere to them. This is something churchians can not do.

Gen 6:4The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men that were of old, the men of renown.

"Anytime you are dealing with a self-professed Christian who quotes only part of a verse when the full one is contextually relevant, you can safely conclude that he - or in this case, she - is a Churchian who has no interest in the truth."

Jesus said in John 10 that his sheep know His voice. He also said those who do not believe are not his sheep. Every sheep of the flock knows the voice of the Lord, for they responded to his calling them into His flock. Only God, not you, ultimately knows what is in the heart of Christians. This characterization of Churchian is other than holy. He will judge all of us.

Genesis 7e than fifteen cubits.[a][b] 21 Every living thing that moved on land perished—birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind. 22 Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died. 23 Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; people and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark.------------

Genesis 623 Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; people and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark.

I'm not assuming anything. "Those days" mean the days of Noah. "And afterwards" must then some time period after it. Immediate, or later. Doesn't matter to the argument that the flood removed the Nephilim, which it didn't.

Theory 1 is that it wasn't a global flood, and the language isn't meant to imply it is though it sounds that way to the modern reader. Nephilim elsewhere survived. Theory 2 is that the Sons of God reproduced with human females a second time after the flood. When it says "when the Sons of God", the tense doesn't refer to a particular point in time. It could be equally well translated "whenever the Sons of God...".

But again, which it is, is completely irrelevant because it says "and afterwards". If that's not enough for you though (it should), there are also the Rephaim tribes all over Palestine when Israel was sent to reconquer it, and Goliath in specific.

The whole lizard people stuff

Now you're just babbling. The Septuagint Greek word for Nephilim is "gigas". It just means "giants".

Also, it says "those men of renown". This is a clear reference to people like the Sumerian Gilgamesh. I mean, the wording assumes that the original reader knows exactly who "those" men are, and the Epic of Gilgamesh was a famous text at the time. And lo and behold, Hittite texts say his height was 11 cubits, which is about 17 feet.

Immediately after the mention of "those days" it says that God decided on the flood. It is perfectly obvious that "afterwards" refers to after the flood. You are just stubbornly refusing to see the obvious because you are so attached to your childish Sunday School theology.

Yeah, I pretty much got all from this from Michael Heiser. It's ok not to know the information. But when originally faced with it, I checked the sources, saw that they all check out, and then accepted the huge wealth of evidence. I mean, what I've said so far is far from everything. This person (guessing, a woman) started out with snark from a position of ignorance, and then doubled down. That's what angered me.